Lens recommendations for new DSLR owners

Thank you gaia. C: I personally don't mind manually focusing. especially as the auto focus one is 100 bucks more o-O

 

There is that, true. But I think the AF-S functionality (fast, quiet, full time manual) is worth it, just for the handholdability. I wish Canon would treat their 50s with so much care.

F/1.8 is difficult to manually focus well on the "extra bright" viewfinders of today - the thinnest depth of field the viewfinder will show you is that of about f/2.8-4, even if your lens is faster. (link) This problem affects precisely the apertures you probably bought the lens to use in the first place.

The D40 lacks live view, so you can't use the usual work-around either. You would always be forced to spray and pray to some extent.

 

That's part of the fun! xD

But yes, thank you. C: I will consider wether I will just get the manual one or the AF-S. From the way you put it, the auto focus sounds like it will give me a lot less grief in the long run so I might save just a little bit longer.

 

I must admit, even though I own a Canon 50mm WITH autofocus, I usually use it manually for dolls.
Why? Because with an aperture around 2.2 or 2.5 the lense obviously tries to focus on things like lashes, sticking out hair and so on.

It's way easier to manually focus it on something like the eye or mouth and get a sharp picture of the face.
For everything else however auto-focus is better and I don't want to miss it.
But for dolls manual is fine :3

 

yeah I find myself doing more manual focousing on dolls since auto focus is just a litttleee off everytime.

 

i think i will upgrade from 18-135is to 17-55/2.8is in a months, any idea? will it worth the upgrade price?

 

Big jump in price, certainly - about 300% of the 18-135 right? Get it if you need f/2.8, IS and zoom all in one lens. If you are mostly after lens performance in general, you can get similar quality for less money. (15-85, primes, macros, etc.)

I don't know how Sigma is priced in Thailand, but you may want to consider the Sigma 17-50mm OS. From what I've heard, it's pretty close in quality to the Canon 17-55. It only doesn't have full time manual focus.

That said, I own the Canon 17-55. It is married to my camera 90%+ of the time. Low light is mostly what I shoot: indoors, events, evening/night. I preferred it over my (now sold) Tamron 18-270 when traveling because I do not control my lighting conditions when I am on vacation. I prefer it over my Canon 50 f/1.8 when shooting dolls because of convenience.

For me, it is totally worth it. But the minuses are significant: it is large & heavy, it flares quite badly (especially with a filter), it requires large & expensive 77mm filters, and of course it is expensive as hell. And when the lighting is good (daytime), it does not really make better images than cheaper lenses.

I would guess that most people would be happier with a 15-85, which goes both wider and longer, has a newer IS system, and all for 33% less money. But that's just me guessing about random strangers. It really depends on what abilities you're looking for.

 

+1 on the "depends on what you're after" response. If you need the aperture in a zoom, it doesn't get much better than that. Personally I didn't, and went for the 15-85 for the extra range while still maintaining a high general image quality. If you only need a bigger aperture at some points without zoom, then possibly consider a prime or two to use in addition to the existing zoom.

 

I'm looking to buy the Canon EOS Rebel T3i and am going back and forth between just the camera and getting a less expensive lens to play around with or the kit, which puts the price up by a couple hundred dollars. The lens of the kit seems to take good pictures but most of the comparative shots have been landscape and the close ups I wasn't too impressed with (to justify getting the kit straightway.) Anyone here have experience with a 18-55mm IS II lens and doll photography? I wouldn't mind waiting it out and saving but I just don't want it to be in vain when I get get similar or better results with something else... (even if it wouldn't make the whole purchase cheaper.)

 

I think this is the same lens as the kit lens that shipped with the 450D?

If so, I found the kit lens a good first lens. It's perfectly adequate for doll photography and is also fairly versatile, so it's a nice lens to have around for other applications as well. You're basically not going to find "a less expensive lens to play around with" -- the kit lens is one of the cheapest. The only less expensive lens of any merit I'm aware of is the so-called "nifty fifty", and I personally would not recommend that one as your first/only lens (although I love it dearly), just because a 50mm prime lens isn't terribly versatile. I use it almost exclusively for doll photography, but fairly rarely for other photography.

I also find that as an amateur photographer, my skill level isn't sufficient for me to really feel the limitations of the kit lens. There are better, sharper lenses out there but they cost a lot, and the problems with my photos aren't that my lens isn't good enough, it's that I'm not good enough.

 

I figured. I think I'll just save up to kit price and start with what Canon feels is good to sell with the camera. Better to have something decent and solid to start with now that I think about it than go for something cheap and bad that will make me think the camera is no good. Thanks!

 

Anyone here has a Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro??
I'd love to hear opinions regarding this lens coz I'm planning to get it ><
Most reviews I heard was favourable but I'd love to hear reviews from fellow doll owners

Also, how hard is it to use without the IS? (since the one that has IS is like 2x the price lol)
I'm usually a handheld person so I'd love to hear about this too ;_;

Other option that I'm considering is the Canon 50mm f2.5 compact macro
I had a 50mm f1.8 so I thought I might be quite familiar with a 50mm instead of 100mm.

Any thoughts and suggestion are more than welcomed! ><

 

Whippy, don't know if you've already purchased the 100mm f2.8 Macro. It was the first lens I bought (the regular one, not the L) after playing around with the kit lens that came with the camera. And I absolutely love it! 2.5 years later it is still my favorite lens (although I just took the plunge and bought a EF-S 17-55 f2.8, so don't know whether the 100mm macro will still reign after I receive it!) Here a some quick pros and cons:

Pros: If you did any kind of research at all, you already know all the pros. Crisp images, beautiful bokeh, etc etc. It works really well for real people portraits (as long as you are ok with shooting from far away), and shooting macro is just super fun. For doll photography, it works really well for all kinds of shots for tinies, and close-up & portraits for minis. You can also get very, very close to your dolls with this lens. The minimum focusing distance is mostly taken up by the lens itself!

Cons: As far as doll photography goes, the field of view is quite small on a APS-C body so expect to have to shoot from really, really far away. I only have minis and tinies so I can't speak for SD sized doll photography, but I can only imagine that it would be very tricky. I would estimate that I was about 5' away when I shot this picture, and she's only 15" tall. (BTW, the next thing that happened was a lesson forever learned.. She fell over and broke her hand, I didn't travel the 5' quickly enough to save her..)

Some people also might not be used to the size and weight of it but it doesn't bother me at all. I feel very comfortable shooting handheld with it as well because of its speed, but for dolls I almost always use a tripod. Because of the speed and my shooting habits, I feel that the IS isn't critical, especially for the price difference!

I don't have the 50mm f2.5 but I do have the 50mm f1.4. My biggest complaint for it is that I just can't get close enough to dolls. Since the f2.5 has a minimum focusing distance of about half of that, it might work very well. I'm hoping that the 17-55 f2.8 will take care of that problem and I might even sell the 50mm f1.4 if that proves the case!

Good luck on your decision!

 

my nikkor 50mm F/1.8 AF-S is godsend! Rarely does it come off my camera (Nikon D40).
I got mine on amazon for about 215$ when it was on sale this past summer.
I never take it out of auto focus, my camera does a fine job on it's own.

f/3.2


F/2.2


f/2.2

 

Do you have a flickr? Your pictures are amazing!

 

I do ^^; Flickr.com/photos/knibitz
You remind me that I need to stick my links back in my sig :B

 

I hate to post in such an old thread, but i couldn't find any others about Lenses.

So im looking to get a new lens for Christmas.
I really want something that can do good macro and would be a good addition to what i have already.

The lenses i have at the moment are,
Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G

I've been debating so hard between

Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G
Nikon Telephoto AF Micro Nikkor 200mm f/4.0D ED-IF

Has anyone used both of these? Which one would you recommend?
Or if someone has another suggestion! Please share!

The camera i have is a Nikon d5100

 

I do not own those specific lenses or that system, but I have similar lenses on a crop camera.

It really depends on what you are going for. If using primarily for "real" macro subjects (especially bugs), you will appreciate the 200mm's extra working distance.

If you want it to be more multipurpose, like say shooting your dolls, I would suggest the 105mm is a safer choice since you won't have to back off to the other side of the house to keep them in frame!

 

Also would like to hear your reviews! Thank you!

 

Has anyone used the 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens? Specifically on a D3000? I am curious how this lens would work for doll photography. I have heard that with up close shots, there will be slight lens distortion. I am wondering if I should go with the the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S?

 

I am a Canon user, so can't comment on that particular lens, but putting in my tuppenceha'penny worth, I would go with the 50mm if you are using it primarily for doll portraits. 35mm lenses are traditionally good portrait lenses, but that is portraits of people, who are considerably larger than dolls. You would have to get in pretty close if you wanted to fill the frame with a head and shoulders shot with that, perhaps closer than its minimum focus distance. I only ever go wider than 50mm when I want to do a full length shot of a big doll (which you might struggle with if you have the 50mm, unless you have lots of space and good lighting). I guess it depends on what you are using it for and in what situations.

 

This is incredibly helpful!!! I just received my 35mm, and it is indeed outside of its focal range if you want to get up close, but wonderful for full body and group shots provided I do have minim space. Looks like I will be getting a 50mm next for closer shots and alternate between the two depending on what I am going for.

 

I am glad! It is a job knowing which lenses to get. I also photograph dolls primarily and I have three lenses that cover everything I need to do. I have my Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime, which is my default lens and gets used for most things. For full body or group shots, I have a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX wide angle zoom, which I got secondhand and is a thing of beauty. For whenever those two won't do the job, I also have a Sigma 55-200 f/4-5.6 telephoto zoom. To be honest, I seldom use it and it is the one I would get rid of, if I had to. So, yes, I think you only need two lenses to cover all bases in toy photography, and a set of extension tubes if you like extreme closeups. Again, I hardly ever use mine, but I do need them every now and then.

 

For versatility on a crop-sensor DLSR, any of the fixed f/2.8 "standard zooms" are hard to beat. Canon, Sigma, and Tamron all make something that goes from either 17 or 18mm up to 50 or 55 with constant f/2.8 aperture. These are worlds better than the similar range kit lenses that are usually f/3.5-5.6 or thereabouts. I shoot nearly all (99%) of my BJD shots with Canon's 17-55mm f/2.8.

 

I agree that a good quality zoom in the 17-55mm range is probably the most efficient way to do things. My wide angle covers the focal length of my prime, even if it can't open up so far.

However, there are two disadvantages to that. One is cost. To get good quality glass in a zoom, comparable to what you would get in a decent prime, you are going to have to fork out proper money. If you want a lens with a large maximum aperture across the range for lots of juicy bokeh (this means that you can get a large aperture regardless of what focal length you have zoomed to, rather than it changing, which the cheaper lenses do), add a whole lot more on top of that. My wide angle would cost me at least £299 ($490) to buy new now, versus a 50mm prime at upwards of £75 ($122). And that is Sigma (cheap) versus Canon (expensive). I don't even want to look at what a comparable Canon zoom would cost. OK. I will go and look. Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 lens is upwards of £639 ($1044).

Also, a zoom is a big, heavy thing and not nearly as portable as a prime. You would need to be pretty dedicated to take it to a meet, what with dolls to carry. I always take my prime out, even if it is less versatile than my wide angle zoom.

So, for a beginner, I am going to continue to plug a 50mm f/1.8 prime as the best starter lens. They are cheap and the glass is good. Even if you have unlimited funds, try out photography with a cheap but workable lens before splashing it around, otherwise you might well waste your hard-earned cash. If you find you are really getting into photography and definitely need the extra, add a wide angle to your kit at a later date.

 

WOW! This is all great advise! I just brought home a 50mm f/1.8 and I was able to play a little bit with it today. After getting a feel for it, I think that my next lense will be once were I can get pretty good close and extreme close ups. With this in mind, I need to figure out if I go macro or zoom...Lots to learn. I am definitley going to look into a 17-55mm for my Nikon.

 

If you want to go in close to tiny things, I am going to recommend extension tubes. These fit between the lens and the camera body and effectively shorten the minimum focal distance of your lens. As they have no glass, you only have the quality of your lens glass to worry about. You can get macro "filters", which do have glass and are cheap. However, predictably, they compromise your image quality. If you go for a reputable brand of extension tube, such as Kenko, they work well with your camera's autofocus. Compared to the outrageous price of macro lenses, they are cheap as chips.

The BIG downside of any macro set up is the extremely limited depth of field. It vanishes to pretty much nothing. The best you can do is make sure all the important parts of what you are photographing are on the same plane, so square on to your camera. Any bits that are slanting off will very soon degenerate into blur.

If you only want to get in slightly closer, you can just use your 50mm and crop your image in Photoshop, providing it is high enough resolution.

 

Nikon 35mm/f1.8DX and the 50mm/f1.8; both cheap, light but excellent performing lenses you definitely cannot go wrong with, most of the photos taken with my camera in general use one of those two (usually the 35mm, but that is because my camera is a crop/DX one)

 

Hey guys, in need of some Canon lens advice here...

I want to buy a prime lens, primarily for shooting BJD but I'll use it for human portraits as well. I have the budget to go above the 50mm f1.8, so I'm considering the 50mm f1.4 or 40mm f2.8. I'm really torn between those two >____<

Anyone can give some advice which lens will work better for doll photography? Thanks!

 

If you have the budget for the 50/1.4, I wouldn't even consider the 40/2.8, honestly. The latter is optically decent, but it's got a weird noisy focusing mechanism that's not on par with USM. It's not as cheap feeling as the 50/1.8, but nor is it much of an improvement. Because you want something that's useful for human portraiture too, the 50/1.4 is a good choice. If you're shooting larger dolls (1/3) and want to get them fully into the frame, be aware that 50mm is going to feel long on an APS-C body. It's a great length for human head and shoulders portraits, and for half-doll portraits, but you go have to get pretty far away to get in a full body scene with a 1/3 scale doll. You haven't mentioned what body and lenses you have already, but that would be helpful in deciding; for example, if you already have a zoom that goes pretty wide, it makes having a longer-focal-length prime that much more appealing.

Canon's older 50mm f/2.5 "compact macro" is also still available and at least worthy of mention so you know all the options. It's not USM, but it can often be found as much as $150 cheaper than the 50/1.4 and it can get in A LOT closer, which is super useful if you have MSD, YoSD or any smaller dolls or toys you want to get tight shots of. At just f/2.5 though, and with its slow focus motor, it's not a great human portrait lens or especially good low-light performer. Those are the tradeoffs with that one.

 

Hi Adam, thank you so much for such an elaborate reply ^^ I have a Canon 550D, and currently the only lens I have is the 55-250mm one which is practically useless for dolly stuffs, I guess
I used to own the 18-55mm kit lens as well, but currently it's broken (*crushed*) and I don't know if it's still repairable.

My main doll to photograph will be a 1/3 doll I'm leaning towards the 50mm f1.4 now, but I'm considering to get another lens for a full body shot of my doll, and for general purposes as well. Is there any lens that you recommend? Something not more than $600, if possible ^^;;

Edit: I just did some more research and somehow I'm kinda hooked on Canon 60mmm f2.8 USM Macro... Only a tiny bit more expensive than 50mm f.14 but with macro capabilities. I'm really eager in learning macro photography and I like photographing tiny doll stuffs such as doll eyes, so do you reckon it's a good choice?

 

I owned the 60mm f/2.8 macro and it is a great lens. That said, I used it only for etsy and ebay product photos, and occasionally for 1/6 fashion doll photos. It's very long for 1/3 scale dolls. If you find the 55mm end of the 55-250 "practically useless", this is a good indication to me that you need to go wider (shorter focal length).

Since your dolls are large, you might even favor the 35mm f/2 ($320, or $600 for the newer IS version) or the 28mm f/1.8. which is also in the right ballpark for full body shots of 1/3 scale dolls.

So the next question is: did you shoot 1/3 scale dolls a lot with the 18-55mm lens before it broke? If so, look at the EXIF data for shots you took with that lens and see what range of focal lengths you favored, or which ones you used for your favorite shots. You might find that a majority of your best shots all happened at around the same focal length, suggesting what you should get for a prime lens.

 

adam is the 60mm macro that much longer compared to the 50mm for shooting 1/3 dolls? If the difference is not that much, I think I prefer to get the macro instead

No, unfortunately I didn't get to shoot any 1/3 dolls with ANY of my lens, since I'm still waiting for my first ever doll to come I'm going to a doll meet a couple of weeks from now though, so I can try taking doll photos with my 55-250mm ^^

Thanks a lot for the advice anyway!

 

Is the 18-55 too broken even to mount on the camera and look through? When deciding what prime to get, with no other reference, this type of lens can be really helpful for getting a feel for the field of view at various focal lengths. It might even be worth picking up another 18-55 and shooting with it for a while before committing hundreds of dollars to a single focal length. As I noted previously, you might find yourself favoring a particular focal length, but I forgot to mention that you might also find yourself all over the range, to the point where you might consider one of the 17-50 or 17-55 constant f/2.8 zooms as your best option. Prime lens have specific advantages, but a single-prime kit is definitely not for everyone, and if I had to pick one Canon prime for my crop-sensor camera, it wouldn't be the 50/1.4 or the 60/2.8, it would be the 35mm f/2 IS (which has a FoV equivalent to 56mm on a full-frame camera). I have no doubt that other photographers of large dolls and people alike would make strong cases for the 28/1.8 and Sigma 30mm as contenders too.

And to answer your other question, yes, the 60mm has enough tighter feel to it than 50mm that I wouldn't consider them interchangeable. The 50 is fully 2 stops faster too, which is a big difference, particularly focusing in lower light conditions. The 60mm is a great lens, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone as a one-prime solution; it's the kind of speciality lens you add to your kit after you've got all your general purpose lens needs covered. Keep in mind too the 60mm doesn't have a range limiter like the 100mm macro, so while the USM is fast when it find focus on the first try, the lens will still hunt into the macro range if it can't find focus lock, which is annoying if you're trying to do candids of people; macro lenses' focusing speeds slow down when they move into the close-focus range, which is why the really nice ones let you lock out the macro range when you're using them to shoot at normal subject distances.

 

I have a Canon and I use an EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens...it doesn't have zoom or anything, but it gets the job done! And since I'm fairly new to DSLR photography, I don't know any different. I'm planning on getting a nice macro lens at some point soon!

 

I use Sony nex7... and tried various lens...i used the fujinon C mount with 50mm and f1.8 and the result is amazing...
but too bad, it only works on big dolls... since the minimum focus is 1 meter...

this one is cropped... otherwise it will be so far away (1meter distance)
the bokeh is swirl.. which is so unique

then I change to Mitakon 35mm f0.95
this is the result

awesome bokeh.. the minimum focus is 30cm... so this one can take smaller size dolls...

and now i have settled to carl zeiss 24mm f1.8
crisp result and nice color
this is the result...

this one can take as close as 20cm... i love this lens so much... (24mm convert to my nex7 equals to 35mm..)

 

This has probably been mentioned that the Tamrom F2.8 17-50mm is an awesome lens. Mine is the one on the Pentax mount but I'm very sure there are Nikon and Canon versions. I use mine for practically everything from vacation shots, to doll/toy photography to astrophotography.